Everything We’ve Been Told About The Canon EOS R7 Mark II

[AlanF]

You can claim Canon risks alienating "lots of R7 users" if they go back to the layout of the 7D, 7D mark II, 80D, 90D, etc. How do you know they didn't alienate a LOT MORE potential R7 buyers who took a pass because of the ridiculous R7 control layout? I've heard MANY say they didn't buy the R7 because it was laid out too different from their R6 or R5 bodies. You're the ONLY person I've ever heard say they want the R7 Mark II to continue the divergent layout.

For those of us who switch between the 5/6 series and the 7, the change in layout is indeed a pain but we (have to) put up with it. However, if you trawl through posts you will find several that do prefer the current R7 layout, and they tend to be from those with the one body.

 

[Philnick]

Just don't make it a lot heavier or more expensive. Right now the R7 is one of the best APS-C mirrorless cameras, particularly since they opened up the RF-S mount a year ago, giving it more parity with Sony and Fujifilm. Nikon puts IBIS only in their full-frame models, making the APS-C Sigmas - all non-stabilized - not as viable. (I'm not familiar with Sony or Fujifilm's cameras.) It would be a shame for Canon to join Nikon in denying us hobbyists the kind of semi-pro camera the R7 represents by making it heavy and expensive.

 

[MSH411]

I'm not discounting the validity of this, but I have to point out that this isn't necessarily 3 sources; in this case it's more likely there's 3 sites repeating a single source, each with their own extrapolations of the info they've been given.

I'll go with that thought process.

 

[Philnick]

I bought an R6 II last fall, but it - with the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM - was so much bigger and heavier than my R7 with the Sigma RF-S 18-50mm f.2.8 that the R6 was seldom used and was resold in half a year. Recently resold the 18-50 and got the new Sigma RF-S 17-40mm f/1.8 Art. At a stop and a third faster than the typical f/2.8 normal zoom and beautifully sharp, it more than overcomes APS-C's one-stop noise and bokeh handicap. Yes, the 17-40 is close to a full-frame lens in size, but it's a much cheaper upgrade than going to a full-frame body, and there's always the ability to use smaller lenses when the light is better. (And Sigma's RF-S 56mm f/1.4 is no slouch either, being sharp wide open.)

That full-time size and weight increase is what I'm trying to avoid.

 

[Dragon]

It's all very odd. They have this very strange business model based on quality, durability and an after sales service for even their cheapest models, and people still buy them. The serious birders must be off their heads as 9/10 here have a pair of their binoculars. Fortunately, we don't have to put up with such nonsense from the camera makers unless we buy their top of the range goods.

Love British humor!

 

[MSH411]

Love British humor!

Shouldn't that be..... Love British Humour

 

[Tom R5R7]

I'm very hopeful that the R7 MkII does mirror the body style and layout of the R6 MKII and the other higher end bodies. The layout and design of the R7 along with the rolling shutter has kept me away from adding one. Shooting with it was awkward, the layout was uncomfortable as well as the size of the body to small. Muscle memory from my other R bodies simply caused this body to be ineffective. The nested joystick on the R7 in my opinion was a PITA.

I know that some may say it falls on me but I would respectfully disagree. Here's a crazy idea, standardize the buttons functionality across the R lineup so that people that use the gear can work across different bodies without having to learn a different layout. If rumors are true regarding the R7 MkII I will finally get to add the APS-C I wanted to my gear, if the layout remains the same and it's still has challenges with excessive rolling shutter I'll stick with what I own.

Or at least standardize it across the single-digit R series. I would expect the 1-series to be a little different because it IS a different animal. It's not likely that someone will be carrying their R1 on one shoulder and an R7 on the other (though it could happen, I guess). I did some photography stuff at some events in DC several years ago - I carried a 5D Mk xxx on one shoulder with a 24-70, and a 7D II with the 70-200 on the other. That gave me a very wide range of focal lengths for capturing people's signs and actions at the event, and sometimes even with some nice DC buildings in the background. So carrying 2 cameras that operate similarly is pretty useful at times.

 

[Tom R5R7]

Just don't make it a lot heavier or more expensive. Right now the R7 is one of the best APS-C mirrorless cameras, particularly since they opened up the RF-S mount a year ago, giving it more parity with Sony and Fujifilm. Nikon puts IBIS only in their full-frame models, making the APS-C Sigmas - all non-stabilized - not as viable. (I'm not familiar with Sony or Fujifilm's cameras.) It would be a shame for Canon to join Nikon in denying us hobbyists the kind of semi-pro camera the R7 represents by making it heavy and expensive.

I can't disagree, but I think that the R10 moniker should have been used for the present day R7, as it's more of an xxD type body, and save the single digit for something more comparable to it's semi-pro full frame brethren. I agree that we do NOT want Canon to go the route of Nikon and squeeze the crop bodies out of the top half of the lineup.

 

[MSH411]

That would make sense Tom and it's pretty close to what you suggest right now. I primarily use three bodies, the R3, R5 and R6 MkII. I wanted an APS-C but the R7 was lacking for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread so I picked up the R50 (super cheap). To your point, upgrading the body size and layout simply would be feasible or even possible on the R50 without doubling the size of the body. The R50 a great travel camera, I worry more about the lens I have mounted than the body.

The challenge, for me at least was prior to going MILC I carried the 5D Mk IV, the 90D and the 60D as a backup. The 90D when I still owned it in my opinion was pretty close to the R7 performance wise. And this is just my opinion after shooting the R7 for some time, the shutter slap, rolling shutter, ISO performance and size just didn't perform a whole hell of a lot better than the R50 and it felt every bit as small.

If rumors hold true on the R7 MkII I will add it when released.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

With all the news about the R6iii, chatter has gone a bit quiet on the R7ii front, even though there is a lot of us that are more interested in a R7ii than a R6iii.

 

[foda]

Now that the R6MkIII has materialized we should soon be able to get back to rumors of the R7MkII (and the 300-600mm lens).